Conflict mangement!

#include<iostream>

using namespace std;

int main(void)

{

cout << "


"Really, John? Did you not just hear what I said?"

"Yes, I heard it loud and clear. I simply don't agree with it, Susan. You know, it would help if you stop taking everything so personally and just grow up."

"Excuse me, what did you just say? Who's the childish one here, not stepping into my shoes, sitting on his high horse and judging me?!"

Now, John has a few options as to how he should respond. Should he:
a) Tackle the problem tactfully, stating that he understands Susan's viewpoint?
b) Apologize for his earlier choice of words?

Wrong, he chose option C. He proceeds to remind her of how she wouldn't stop treating him coldly when he forgot to ask her along for a carnival trip 9 years ago, explaining how it therefore renders her accusations of his childishness invalid.

You see, what was simply a discussion about which route to take to Mum's place became a full-blown heated argument. Let us take a look into this situation and backtrack a little bit - where did the argument begin in the first place? 

Not ten minutes ago, Susan nicely suggested that route A is the fastest and best way to go, recounting her childhood experience on public transport from school back home aloud to pad the credibility of her statement. John, however, believed that of the two people in the car he was more likely to know which is the fastest way to go - and thus insisted on route B. "Nope, route B is faster for sure." he answers nonchalantly. Susan frowns ever slightly. "Are you sure? Because in the past, I've taken this route for years," she claims, hoping to sway John's resolute decision.

"Why are you doubting me, Susan?" 

At this sentence, the emotional atmosphere of the car changed. Susan, unwilling to back down, challenges back: "Did you even listen to what I just said?"  The conversation soon devolved into rants about how John never listens to whatever she has to say, and John, in his defense, systematically lists out instances where he believed he was exceptional at following her instruction and/or listening to her. 

Why does this situation sound so familiar? Even though we may not have even driven a car before or had an overbearing significant other (or even knew people who were like that), why is this story a relatable one? The reason is simple: we have a John and a Susan in each and every one of us. Though our hypothetical John and hypothetical Susan are but caricatures of the conflicts of everyday life, we see some of their traits mirrored in our conflict management styles. 

Susan only wanted assurance that her husband cares about her opinions - in parallel, sometimes we really want to be heard, and could get upset and irrational when nobody pays us heed. John, on the other hand, was adamant about achieving the best results, even at the expense of upsetting his wife - as how we, at times, focus much on KPI's and results at the expense of the people around us. Both of them were unwilling to compromise to find a common solution, or talk it out in a level-headed way. Susan could have accepted that John has been on the road for long and thus would know the routes better, but she refused to give in. John could have reasoned with Susan, telling her that the evening jam would extend the duration of the trip - but alas, he would rather disregard her as a back-seat driver. 

While John and Susan are imaginary characters created for the purposes of illustrating a point, I hope that they helped to demonstrate the importance of compromise. In the humblest of my opinions, compromise and collaboration is the most effective form of conflict management, as it delves deep into the problem of why feelings are being hurt- and deals with the issue at its root by achieving a common solution. Avoiding, like John did, and competing, like Susan did, are detrimental to achieving the best results in any given conflict.

What do YOU, THE READER, think is the best all-rounder form of conflict management, and why? Do tell me in the comments below!



P.S, let's give a round of applause to John and Susan. You may vanish back into the imaginary realm from whence you came now. Dismissed!


";

return 0;

}

Comments

  1. Hey Kai Ler,
    I love this anecdote you made in order to demonstrate the typical 'John and Susan' moments that we all have come across before, and I agree that we do have John and Susan in all of us. In my opinion, the solution to this issue was to take another person along with them in the ride to their mum's place. Another imaginary individual that base his decision on logic and facts, José.

    José, is a neutral entity that neither cares for John nor Susan, or the fact that he is totally not related to them, yet he is in the car, taking a ride to their mum's place. In order to prove which way is better, José might suggest that since John was driving the car, they would take his route towards the place, and on the next visit, they can take Susan's route. In doing so, they would be able to tell which route is faster to their mum's place to take in future.

    Basically, José is the compromise in the situation, where he creates a term for both parties can come to an agreement with, the best form in conflict resolution. Thus, we should all have a José in us too.
    - Eugene

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment